CUB 58929

Hon. David G. Riche

The issue was whether or not the claimant left his employment without just cause under sections 29 and 30 of the El Act.

The claimant had been employed in Brooks, Alberta, from February 26, 2001 to the 29^th of November, 2002. At that time he quit his employment and returned to Newfoundland because he could not afford to live in Alberta. The claimant in Exhibit 5 showed his monthly expenses as being about $1500 and his average monthly income was $2987. The Commission came to the conclusion that the claimant did not have just cause for leaving his employment and stated that a reasonable alternative to leaving would have been for the claimant to remain working as his expenses did not exceed his income.

The evidence at the hearing was that the company used to provide accommodation for the claimant and then later that was cancelled and he shared the cost of an apartment with two others. When his roommates left he had no one to share the costs and he was unable to find anyone to take their place. He was unable to manage without financial help from his parents in Newfoundland. He could not find other work in Alberta because of his background and limited training.

The Board found that the claimant was in such a situation in Alberta that he could not manage financially without occasional help from his parents. They found that for almost a year he tried to get roommates to share the cost but was not successful. Even though the claimant did not seek other employment before he left his job, the Board was convinced that his job options were such that he would not get a higher paying job. The Board found the claimant did not have a reasonable alternative to leaving his employment and allowed the appeal.

The Commission appeals. The Commission argued that the claimant should have sought cheaper accommodation.

I have considered the evidence in this matter and the arguments of both the appellant and the claimant. The claimant's argument boils down to his now getting very little overtime and unable to find cheaper accommodation.

Against that is the argument of the Commission which states that the claimant should have looked for cheaper accommodations so as to fit into his income.

The Board of Referees found that the claimant could not manage financially without occasional help from his parents in Newfoundland. For almost a year he tried to get new roommates to cover the cost.

The Board of Referees are the finders of fact and based on the evidence before them they made a finding that the claimant was unable to financially maintain himself in Alberta and needed help from his parents in Newfoundland. That decision was based on the evidence that he was getting less overtime and then he could not find roommates for nearly a year. The claimant may not have been able to find other accommodation if he was tied into a lease commitment for the place he shared with his other roommates. That information was not available on the record. In these circumstances I do not believe it is sufficient for the Commission to say the claimant should just find cheaper accommodation.

I find no evidence from the Commission that cheaper accommodation was available to the claimant and that would solve his problem. This is not a case where the claimant made a sudden move but had taken nearly a year before he realized he had to leave Alberta. I therefore find that I should not disturb the decision of the Board of Referees who were the finders of fact, who made the conclusion based on evidence they had before them which, in my view, is a decision which can be supported by the evidence they had.

In these circumstances, the appeal of the Commission is dismissed.

David G. Riche

Umpire

September 19, 2003
St. John's, NF